Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/

The beauty and power of Genesis is how it reaches people throughout all the ages. Its purpose is to declare God as creation. If the chosen method is to use an eyewitness of real events, then real events will be what is observed and recorded. Was not John instructed to write what he observed in the last book, with some restrictions? What percent of the Bible is from direct or indirect eye-witness accounts?
   
  There was no need for the earlier generations to understand physics as the account as written gave great foundational value to the believer. It isn't about physics, but about the Creator. The foundational strength and focus is still there, but reinterpretation is still needed to understand it, assuming the account was from actual observations. The earlier generations were nourished by the milk from Genesis, today we are older and wiser, but lactose intolerant. Yet, there is meat in the bowl!
   
  Science has peeled away layers of myth and misinterpretation. The Geocentric view of the Earth was a helpful foundational view for believers, too. It took over 100 years to show that the better Copernican model was correct. Galileo was forcing the Church to do something it did not wish to do....reinterpret scripture.
   
  Thanks for your comments, Jack. My limited discussion in a YEC-favored forum was less than helpful, so all TE views, especially, are welcome.

Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
          The problem with such a concordist approach, is that the author of Genesis, and his audience knew nothing about stellar accretion disks, Rayleigh-Tyndall Scattering, and so forth. I dont think that an approach to biblical interpretation that would leave the intended audience completely in the dark as to its meaning, is a reasonable one.
    ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Cooper
  To: bertsche@aol.com ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/
  

  Thanks Kirk. I should have known Wiki had it.
   
  This "framework" view seems to be more of a duplex than a single household. It seems too much of a recondite approach for such a very important introductory group of passages that would be best in simple terms. It does not flow for me, it log jams. My pipes, admittedly, are not all that large, so I will not rule this view out.
   
  I strongly encourage this group to consider the latest discoveries in astronomy and apply them in an exegesis of Gen. 1. Perhpas you have.
   
  Modern astronomy is bringing amazing news as to the early eras of our solar system. Spitzer's infrared observational abilities has "eyed" hundreds of stellar accretion disks. These disks were postulated as far back as Kant, but only in our times have they been observable. Also, planet formation models are becoming more and more accurate, though they still have a long way to go.
   
  Is it plausible to state that an uneducated observer of antiquity would, as an eye-witness, state the Earth ever appeared as an object "without form and void"?
   
  Could the Sun burst forth a flood of light? Dust and gas will enshroud many proto-stellar bodies, but not for very long as light will flood outward flushing it away. Indeed, it is radiation pressure that swells a star to equilibrium. Let there be light.
   
  Water anyone? Guess what color an observer would see for a highly illuminated accretion disk? It can be blue for the very same reason the sky above is blue -- Rayleigh-Tyndall Scattering. It would require neighbors. Guess what? Iron60 evidence, and other isotopes, demonstrate that our star formed in a typical, active nursery. These neighbors would also need to be very bright, assuming our observer is using normal vision. A single big neighbor is capable of visible light at over a million times the visible solar flux. They are also strongest in the blue end of the visual spectrum. How would our observer describe a billion miles of blue?
   
  If any have references that explore these ideas, I would be grateful.
   
  Helio
  

bertsche@aol.com wrote:
  FYI, there's a fairly decent summary of the Framework view on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_%28Genesis%29

Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: drsyme@cablespeed.com
     
  Second, you used the word framework. Whether you realize it or not, there is a biblical interpretation titled the "framework" view. It sees Genesis more figuratively, but not as a fairly tale, and it does not conflict with science. If you are not familiar with it the leading authors of this view are Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, among others.

    
---------------------------------
  AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 28 00:37:20 2007